Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. A. H. (In re T. M. H.)

297 Or.App. 725

444 P.3d 1109

In the MATTER OF T. M. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of A. K. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of M. R. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of A. K. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of T. M. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of M. R. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of A. K. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of T. M. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

In the Matter of M. R. H., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.M. A. H., Appellant.

A166378 (Control)

A166379

A166380

A166859

A166860

A166861

A166862

A166863

A166864

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and submitted May 15, 2018.

May 30, 2019

Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.^*

ORTEGA, P. J.

In this consolidated appeal, mother challenges judgments terminating her parental rights to her three children and the denial of her motion to terminate dependency jurisdiction as to the youngest child, A. We conclude that clear and convincing evidence establishes that mother has engaged in conduct and is characterized by conditions that remain seriously detrimental to all three children; that integration of the children into mother’s home is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change; and that termination is in the best interests of each of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgments.

By way of overview, the two older children, M (born in 2004) and T (born in 2005), are in foster care for the third time, and A (born in 2013) is in foster care for the second time. The children have been in their current foster placement, with their paternal grandparents, since November 2014, and we have addressed the family’s long-running involvement with the Department of Human Services (DHS) on two prior occasions. See Dept. of Human Services v. M. J. H. , 278 Or. App. 607, 609, 375 P.3d 579 (2016), rev. den. , 361 Or. 486, 395 P.3d 870 (2017) (vacating and remanding permanency judgments), and Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. H. , 284 Or. App. 215, 218-19, 391 P.3d 985, rev. den. , 361 Or. 486, 395 P.3d 870 (2017) (concluding that DHS made reasonable efforts to address mother’s mental health needs and affirming permanency judgments). In this appeal of the termination judgments, we review the facts de novo , ORS 19.415(3)(a), and we recount the facts only as necessary to give context to our ruling, beginning with a summary of the procedural history for context.

I. FACTS

Mother and father had a relationship characterized by domestic violence, substance abuse, and child neglect that resulted in the removal of M and T from their care in 2010 and removal of all three children in 2013. M. J. H. , 278 Or. App. at 609, 375 P.3d 579. They were returned to parents’ care for a second time in April or May of 2014. Id . In October of that year, M contacted his aunt with concerns that mother was using drugs and, the following month, DHS again removed the children from mother’s care and placed them in foster care with grandparents, where they have remained for the intervening years. Id. at 609-10, 375 P.3d 579.

In January 2015, as a consequence of that last removal from mother’s care, the juvenile court took jurisdiction "based on the risk of harm created by mother’s criminal activities, lack of parenting skills, substance abuse, and her practice of leaving the children with unsafe care providers." M. A. H. , 284 Or. App. at 218-19, 391 P.3d 985. In June 2015, DHS filed new dependency petitions, additionally alleging that "mother has mental health issues that interfere with her ability to safely parent her children." Id. at 219, 391 P.3d 985. The cases were not consolidated and proceeded on separate tracks, resulting in termination judgments on one of the tracks in June 2016, id. , while permanency judgments for the other cases were being appealed and were ultimately reversed. M. J. H. , 278 Or. App. at 614, 375 P.3d 579. As a result of that reversal, the juvenile court set aside the 2016 termination judgments and consolidated the two tracks of dependency cases. At a second termination trial, mother moved to dismiss jurisdiction and wardship as to all three children; the juvenile court denied those motions and entered judgments of termination.¹

Mother has a long history of using drugs, neglecting the children’s physical and medical needs, keeping the children in filthy living conditions, and being involved in violent relationships. She also has been physically violent with the children and has mental health issues. She made some progress in addressing some of these issues in the year before trial but did not exhibit good understanding of how her past behavior has affected the children and still endangers them.

Mother’s history of substance abuse dates back as early as 2000. In October 2012, while pregnant with A, mother was reportedly using drugs in front of her children at an emergency shelter. She was admitted to a residential facility for methamphetamine detoxification in August 2013. More recent drug use is unclear. In early 2015, mother claimed abstinence from prescription opioids for over a year. During a drug and alcohol treatment assessment in November 2015, mother falsely denied ever using amphetamine and opiates and was diagnosed with opioid use disorder. Between November 2015 and October 2016, mother gave 79 UAs, all negative, but had three no-shows and two dilute UAs, and her treatment provider did not know if mother had a relapse plan in place. In August 2016, mother told Dr. Basham that she had started using methamphetamine at age 28 and last used in July 2015. At the time of that assessment, she had a prescription for Adderall, which contains amphetamine, and Basham believed that mother was "maintaining her addiction through the use of [Adderall]."

When Dr. Deitch evaluated mother in March 2015, she claimed to be taking Adderall for ADHD and to have had a recent bipolar episode. He later found out that mother was under the influence during the evaluation and concluded that her mental health problems predated her issues with substance abuse. She exhibited Dependent, Antisocial, and Borderline Personality Features. He further diagnosed her with stimulant use disorder, opioid use disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder related to domestic violence, rule-out bipolar disorder, and adjustment disorder with mixed depression and anxiety. At the time of trial, mother was in individual therapy with Crowe to address PTSD from domestic violence.

M testified that, in mother’s home, he had felt that he had to help care for his younger siblings because they were not being fed or looked after or helped when they were hurt. In his words, "I just felt like I just became the parent." He sometimes stayed home from school to take care of his siblings, and occasionally ate non-food items such as pencils, paper, and bark chips because he was hungry and there was no food in the house.

Although mother’s counselor, Crowe, sees progress in her ability to recognize the impacts of her behavior on the children, mother continues to display a tendency to minimize those impacts and to focus on the responsibility of others. Crowe acknowledged that mother continues to have issues with being in denial and has limited insight into her parenting and the resulting damage to the children and blames some of those impacts on father’s family, including grandparents. Mother identified the harm to be that the children "were scared," that they "had some neglect," and that they "have experienced a loss of family." She expressed the view that it was best for them to "be with their mom."

DHS caseworker Tannler, during a home visit in March 2017, discussed with mother that, as she was already aware, M did not want to return to her home. Mother expressed the view that grandparents had "soured" the children’s view of her and poisoned them against her. Tannler told mother that M had explained that he did not trust her to continue in recovery; M expected that she would be back on drugs in two weeks and he would again not be able to go to school, would have to hide from the police, and he would have to parent his siblings. Mother maintained that those fears were all the result of poisoning by grandparents. According to Tannler, "all I’m hearing [from mother] is blaming of others and a minimizing of the impacts that have occurred to the kids."

Mother maintained that, if the children were returned to her, she would not allow them to continue a relationship with grandparents, even while she acknowledged A’s bond with grandparents (with whom she has lived most of her life) and that severing contact with grandparents would be detrimental to all three children. Deitch opined that cutting off contact with grandparents would be harmful to the children and that mother’s determination to do so shows a lack of insight and a deficit in her understanding of what a child would need.

Quaresma, a therapist working with M and T, met with mother in March 2017 to discuss the prospects for resuming visits with the children, which had been suspended for...